Pages

Friday, September 22, 2006

Healthy And Unhealthy Skepticism

I'm continuing a discussion with Jon Curry on some issues related to early church history in another thread. Some subjects have come up there that I think warrant some attention in a post of their own. I want to address three points.

Jon has brought up Irenaeus' false belief about the age of Jesus. He uses that mistake as a justification for dismissing Irenaeus' testimony about the authorship of the gospels. I've discussed some of the reasons why Jon's argument is fallacious in that other thread, but I want to emphasize, here, one of the points I made in that thread. There is no early document that explicitly tells us that Jesus was such-and-such an age when He died. We arrive at conclusions about His probable age by means of putting together various pieces of information. We today may think that it's obvious that Jesus died in His 30s, since we hear that conclusion so often from pastors, historians, etc., and we so often see artwork, movies, and such that portray Jesus as somebody in that age range. But whether Jesus was in His 30s or 40s isn't of much significance to Christianity, and Irenaeus lived at a time when that issue hadn't received nearly as much attention as it has since then. As I explain in the other thread, it seems likely that Irenaeus reached his false conclusion based primarily on a misreading of John 8:57 and perhaps some other data. When he refers to elders of the church confirming what he was reporting, those elders probably only confirmed the historicity of John 8:57, an oral tradition related to some other passage of scripture, or something else that Irenaeus wrongly associated with Jesus' having lived to an old age. If those elders had taught that Jesus lived so long, it seems unlikely that so many other early sources would disagree with Irenaeus on the point. Irenaeus did make a mistake that he attributed, in part, to the traditions of the elders, but it was a mistake on a subject that's somewhat difficult to discern and about which Irenaeus didn't have nearly as much easy access to information as we have today.

Secondly, we ought to keep in mind that it's common for historical sources to be mistaken on some subjects. I remember seeing a television program on Josephus while I was in college. The program gave examples of issues where historians rejected Josephus' claims, yet the program went on to mention how Josephus is trusted on other issues. Similarly, witnesses in a court of law often are mistaken in many areas of their lives. One man may read his horoscope every day, another man may not remember his anniversary date, and another may have some false beliefs about American history. It wouldn't make sense for a defense attorney to try to undermine these three men's testimony about a crime they witnessed by mentioning their lack of credibility on the issues I just referred to. Tacitus was a Roman historian who sometimes had potential motives to make an emperor or Rome in general appear better than they actually were, but we can't therefore dismiss everything he reports on such subjects.

"Comparably speaking, this evidence [for Tacitus] is vanishingly small compared to the incredible number of attestations and attributions by patristic writers [for the gospels], some few earlier than (but many as late as) those listed for Tacitus above. How can someone dealing with the evidence fairly claim to be sure of Tacitus' authorship of his various works (where such external evidence is concerned) and dismiss the Gospels, which have far better external evidence? I have recently checked a book titled Texts and Tranmission (Clarendon Press, 1993) which records similar data for other ancient works. Throughout the book classic works from around the time of the NT whose authorship and date no one questions (though some have textual issues, just like the NT) are recorded as having the earliest copy between 5th and 9th century, earliest attributions at the same period (for example, Celsus' De medicina is attested no earlier than 990 AD, and then not again until 1300!), and having so little textual support that if they were treated as the NT is, all of antiquity would be reduced to a blank wall of paranoid unknowingness. If the Gospels are treated consistenly, there will be no question at all about their provenance, but that is clearly the last thing critics want to do."

Craig Keener, commenting on attempts to deny that the same author wrote the gospel of John and the Johannine epistles, writes:

"No other author of antiquity could survive the nit-picking distinctions on which NT [New Testament] scholars, poring over a smaller corpus, often thrive. As a translator of Euripides for the Loeb series notes, Euripides’ ‘plays, produced at times widely apart, and not in the order of the story, sometimes present situations (as in Hecuba, Daughters of Troy, and Helen) mutually exclusive, the poet not having followed the same legend throughout the series.’ He would not fare well in the hands of our discipline." (The Gospel Of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], p. 125)

D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo, after addressing the external evidence for John's authorship of the fourth gospel, write:

"Most historians of antiquity, other than New Testament scholars, could not so easily set aside evidence as plentiful and as uniform." (An Introduction To The New Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005], p. 233)

The double standard isn't just a result of a distinction between religious and non-religious literature. As Martin Hengel notes:

"Thus we have only one biography of Muhammad (who died in 632), by Ibn Hisham (who died in 834, 212 years after the Hijra), which has incorporated parts of the lost earlier biography by Ibn Ishaq (died 767). Although the chronological distance from the historical subject in the Muhammad biography is much greater [than it is with Jesus], the historical scepticism of critical European scholarship is substantially less here." (The Four Gospels And The One Gospel of Jesus Christ [Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000], p. 6)

People aren't threatened by the writings of men like Tacitus, Euripides, and Ibn Hisham as much as they are by the New Testament documents. Double standards are applied.

In closing, I want to comment on one other subject. Jon Curry has referred to Tertullian as a "vicious" and "wicked" man, and he recently suggested that Irenaeus was "lying". I think that when a person gets to the point of denying Jesus' existence and describing men like Irenaeus and Tertullian as vicious and wicked and liars, he's probably crossed the line from healthy skepticism to unhealthy skepticism.

12 comments:

I did not actually say that I think Irenaeus is lying. I was asking if you were suggesting he was lying (by giving me an ulterior motive for his statement.) I then assumed what you were suggesting and then commented on what that implied.

Not that I don't think he was lying. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he was lying. Early Christians put forward forgeries on a regular basis. We've of course been discussing Papias' ridiculous fantastic claims. Either he's lying or some other Christian perpetuated fraud which he accepted. Eusebius is the first to cite the famous Testimonium Flavinium, an obvious Christian forgery. It wouldn't be all that surprising if he were the very forger, though it could be another Christian. Eusebius is infamous for arguing that it is sometimes necessary to lie for the cause of Christianity. He cites other forgeries, such as a letter supposedly from Jesus himself, with complete confidence. There are Christian forgeries as far as the eye can see, and where we have a document that is not a forgery, in that case we have Christians modifying copies to suit their own ends. Then we have early church councils presided over by murderous thugs, which occur with back door dealings and violence.

Notice that Jon offers no documentation for his claims and sometimes qualifies his comments by saying that something may be true or may not be. He doesn't explain what his list of criticisms is supposed to prove. He leaves the reader to try to determine what he might have in mind, whether his claims are accurate, and what his criticisms are supposed to prove.

Either Jon is addressing Christians in general or he's only addressing the alleged actions of a portion of professing Christians. If it's the latter, then his argument doesn't prove much. The ancient Roman world had many forgeries (see, for example, http://christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html), as does modern American society. Those of us who are on the web on a regular basis encounter many forgeries or dishonesty in some other form frequently. Similarly, just as some later church councils involved violence in some form, the same can be said of many similar proceedings in ancient and modern society (for example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3560977.stm).

As I told Jon in an earlier thread in which he used the same sort of bad arguments, what sense does it make to object to Christiantiy in general by citing the disapproved behavior of individuals or groups within professing Christianity? In an earlier thread (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-wrote-gospel-of-john.html), Jon cited documents like the Gospel Of Mary and the Gospel Of Thomas as examples of how Christianity produces many forgeries. But since most early Christians were opposed to such documents, what does the production of such documents by Gnostics and other minorities prove? Do we criticize Americans in general for producing forgeries on the basis of the behavior of a small minority of Americans who are involved in forging documents?

In the past, Jon has cited the example of Cyril of Alexandria's behavior. But since Cyril lived a few hundred years after the earliest Christians, and since the church councils of the earliest centuries occurred without the sort of behavior Jon has criticized Cyril for, what's a criticism of Cyril supposed to prove?

It seems that Jon often posts without giving much thought to his arguments.

You've repeatedly made your claims without providing any documentation, but now you demand documentation from me.

Since Jon's reply is only two words long ("prove it"), I guess that I'm limited to only two words in my response. After all, if Jon only needed two words, why would I need more? I've already exceeded that limit, so I'll probably be accused, again, of being too verbose, a "fog machine", etc. Maybe Jon would prefer that I just say "You're wrong."

Some people consider Acts 15 a council, and we know of some councils that occurred in the second and third centuries (Eusebius, Church History, 5:16:10, 5:23:2; Cyprian, Letter 67; etc.). Regarding the councils of the late second century involving the celebration of Easter, Eusebius wrote:

"Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew. up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenaeus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote." (Church History, 5:23:2)

Eusebius goes on, in the next chapter, to refer to how Polycrates and those with him in Asia disagreed with the others, but the disagreement was expressed non-violently. It doesn't seem that these councils were involved in the sort of violence Jon has criticized Cyril of Alexandria for.

Tertullian writes of church councils being held in unity:

"Besides, throughout the provinces of Greece there are held in definite localities those councils gathered out of the universal Churches, by whose means not only all the deeper questions are handled for the common benefit, but the actual representation of the whole Christian name is celebrated with great veneration. (And how worthy a thing is this, that, under the auspices of faith, men should congregate from all quarters to Christ! 'See, how good and how enjoyable for brethren to dwell in unity!' This psalm you know not easily how to sing, except when you are supping with a goodly company!)" (On Fasting, 13)

Eusebius goes on, in the next chapter, to refer to how Polycrates and those with him in Asia disagreed with the others, but the disagreement was expressed non-violently.

Well, good for them that they didn't get violent. I would be surprised if any council could be as wicked as Ephesus. I'll grant that early councils are not as bad as the one presided over by Cyril.

But let's remember the overall point here. You've made the argument that the early fathers were men of exceptional integrity in support of some of your claims. My response is that they don't seem to be men of extraordinary integrity. I've talked about the earliest ecumenical councils (councils for which we have more evidence to go on than what Eusebius is referring to here) and things don't look good. Based on the scanty info we have, you've shown that they probably didn't get violent. I don't think that goes as far as you need it to.

In addition I've mentioned how Eusebius defends lying for the cause of Christianity. Again, this does not bode well for your argument. Since Eusebius is arguing against the Bishop of Rome with regards to Easter we would expect him to put a positive spin on the harmony and agreement that people came to over and against his opponent.

Interestingly, with regards to this controversy Eusebius is engaged in with regards to Easter, on the other side of the fence we find Polycarp, who disagrees with Eusebius on when Easter should be celebrated, and claims apostolic authority for his position. So what we have if we accept this claim from Eusebius is a united council that opposes teachings from the apostles that were handed down. Unless of course this is another one of those cases where we reject the apostolic traditions Polycarp expresses that we disagree with.

"Well, good for them that they didn't get violent. I would be surprised if any council could be as wicked as Ephesus. I'll grant that early councils are not as bad as the one presided over by Cyril."

The readers should note that Jon is suggesting that he wasn't previously aware of what happened at these earlier councils, if he was even aware that the councils took place. This is another indication of how much Jon knows about church history.

You write:

"You've made the argument that the early fathers were men of exceptional integrity in support of some of your claims."

What do you mean by "exceptional integrity"? Quote the comments I've made that you're allegedly responding to. I've said that the earliest Christians had high moral standards, and I singled out their opposition to forgeries and pseudonymity with regard to issues of document authorship in particular. It doesn't therefore follow that I was suggesting that something like Cyril of Alexandria's behavior at a fifth century church council didn't happen.

You write:

"My response is that they don't seem to be men of extraordinary integrity."

Again, you still aren't giving us sources for your claims, and men like Cyril of Alexandria weren't among the earliest Christians. Issues of document attribution were well established before Cyril of Alexandria became a leader of the church. And the moral standards we see in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, Paul's letters, etc. were standards that thousands of the earliest Christians tried to live by, even if some church leaders, like Cyril, didn't do well in living by those standards. Men like Peter, Paul, John, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr aren't comparable to Cyril of Alexandria.

You write:

"I've talked about the earliest ecumenical councils (councils for which we have more evidence to go on than what Eusebius is referring to here) and things don't look good."

Again, you need to give us documentation for your claims. There were councils before the ones that are now commonly considered ecumenical. And some councils that aren't considered ecumenical were attended by more bishops than there were at the ecumenical councils.

If you want to make a case against the moral standards of the earliest Christians, you need to do a lot more than citing something like Cyril of Alexandria's behavior. (Even as far as he's concerned, you would need to distinguish between his actions and what others did around him that he may not have approved of. I don't know what sources you're relying on or which specific incidents you have in mind.) Have you read much of the ante-Nicene patristic literature? Have you read what they wrote about forgiveness, caring for the poor, violence, honesty, and other moral issues? I've already referred you to Glenn Miller's work on early Christian opposition to forgeries and pseudonymity (http://christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html). I've also cited D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo's comments on the subject in An Introduction To The New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005). On moral issues in general, see Philip Schaff's comments at:

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch08.htm

Or Chris Price's articles, for example:

http://christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_charity.html

http://christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_infanticide.html

This sort of information is widely available. A lot of other sources could be cited. You can complain that you disagree with Christianity on some issues related to morality, or object to the behavior of some individuals, but it doesn't therefore follow that forging documents or the behavior of Cyril of Alexandria, for example, was widely accepted.

You write:

"Based on the scanty info we have, you've shown that they probably didn't get violent. I don't think that goes as far as you need it to."

The evidence suggests that the church councils of the earliest centuries didn't involve the sort of behavior that you're criticizing Cyril of Alexandria for. How does that "not go as far as I need it to"?

You write:

"In addition I've mentioned how Eusebius defends lying for the cause of Christianity."

Again, document your claim. I'm not going to guess at what your'e referring to. If you cite a source, tell us whether you accept its argument. I'm not going to take the time to address sources that you'll distance yourself from once they're shown to be unreliable. Have you made the effort to research whether other people have responded to the charges against Eusebius that you have in mind? And if you think that the charges are accurate, then explain what implications you think they have for Peter, Paul, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, and other earlier Christians.

You write:

"Since Eusebius is arguing against the Bishop of Rome with regards to Easter we would expect him to put a positive spin on the harmony and agreement that people came to over and against his opponent."

What are you referring to? Eusebius lived in the third and fourth centuries. He was discussing a controversy over Easter in the second century. He refers to both sides using non-violent means to further their case. You've acknowledged that it's historically probable that violence wasn't involved in these church councils, so what are you suggesting with your comments above? This sort of vagueness, lack of documentation, and misstatement of facts is common in your posts.

You write:

"Interestingly, with regards to this controversy Eusebius is engaged in with regards to Easter, on the other side of the fence we find Polycarp, who disagrees with Eusebius on when Easter should be celebrated, and claims apostolic authority for his position. So what we have if we accept this claim from Eusebius is a united council that opposes teachings from the apostles that were handed down. Unless of course this is another one of those cases where we reject the apostolic traditions Polycarp expresses that we disagree with."

What do you mean by "another one of those cases"? What else have I argued against from Polycarp? And where have I argued against his view of celebrating Easter? Polycarp got along well with his contemporaries who celebrated Easter differently. The councils related to Easter that Eusebius discusses occurred after Polycarp was dead. And most of those people discussing the issue after Polycarp's death thought that it was acceptable for Christians to disagree on the issue. That's why Irenaeus rebuked Victor, even though Irenaeus agreed with Victor regarding the issue surrounding the celebration of Easter. He thought that Victor should have been at peace with the Christians who disagreed with him on the issue. The issue under dispute was a matter of church discipline, not a matter of doctrinal truth. Different apostles probably allowed Easter to be recognized in different ways.

What you seem to be suggesting is that there must have been one way that all of the apostles celebrated Easter. Since Christians as early as the second century disagreed on the issue, then we can't trust what the early Christians believed about the apostles on other issues either. But that's an absurd argument, for reasons I've explained earlier in this thread and elsewhere. No historian would reject something that ancient sources widely agreed about just because they disagreed on some other issues. If Christians universally report that the second gospel was written by Mark, for example, it doesn't make sense to use their disagreements over how to celebrate Easter as a justification for dismissing their universal testimony about Mark. I've explained why your reasoning on such issues is erroneous, and you need to interact with what I've said if you're going to keep using that sort of argument.

The readers should note that Jon is suggesting that he wasn't previously aware of what happened at these earlier councils, if he was even aware that the councils took place. This is another indication of how much Jon knows about church history.

Again turning from your lectern and talking to the audience. Weird.

Anyway, what I'm suggesting is that there is not a lot of information about these councils, so it's a little presumptuous to assume nothing but positive things.

I've said that the earliest Christians had high moral standards, and I singled out their opposition to forgeries and pseudonymity with regard to issues of document authorship in particular.

What does high moral standards mean? High is a relative term, so I assume you mean "better than average." That's what I mean with "exceptional" integrity. I don't see that they have better than average integrity.

It doesn't therefore follow that I was suggesting that something like Cyril of Alexandria's behavior at a fifth century church council didn't happen.

I didn't say you were denying that it happened.

Issues of document attribution were well established before Cyril of Alexandria became a leader of the church. And the moral standards we see in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, Paul's letters, etc. were standards that thousands of the earliest Christians tried to live by, even if some church leaders, like Cyril, didn't do well in living by those standards. Men like Peter, Paul, John, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr aren't comparable to Cyril of Alexandria.

You point to those that opposed the creation of forgeries as if this removes the underlying problem. But the fact remains the widespread uproar about forgeries is for the very reason that Christian forgeries were a huge problem. Even (pseudo) Paul is battling forgeries. I don't deny that there was a lot of anger from Christians over the creation of forgeries. But the cause of all that reaction is that Christians are engaged in a lot of forgeries. Further, insofar as we have a lot of evidence regarding the precedings of councils we further have a lot of evidence of unethical behavior. You want to limit the discussion to only early councils for which there is little evidence one way or the other. But what is typical of Christian assemblies that we have evidence for is bad behavior. Actions that don't give us any kind of evidence of moral standards any higher than might be expected of people in similar positions of power that were not Christian. On your view we have to assume that what was true in the 4th and 5th centuries is very different from what was true in the 2nd or 3rd. Why should we believe that? It's not enough to show that they weren't violent. There needs to be examples of out of the ordinary moral behavior if you are going to claim high moral standards.

Again, you need to give us documentation for your claims. There were councils before the ones that are now commonly considered ecumenical. And some councils that aren't considered ecumenical were attended by more bishops than there were at the ecumenical councils.

The issue is not the number of bishops at a council. The issue is the amount of evidence we have regarding the events at the council.

If you want to make a case against the moral standards of the earliest Christians, you need to do a lot more than citing something like Cyril of Alexandria's behavior.

This is your argument, so the burden is on you. You are the one that is claiming high moral standards. What I'm saying with regards to Cyril or Nicea or Constantinople is that this doesn't seem to be the case where we actually have evidence. Why should we accept your claim when we don't have any evidence.

That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach.

It is useful to note what he's referring to in Plato:

Athenian: Be it so; yet it proved easy to persuade men of the Sidonian fairy-tale, incredible though it was, and of numberless others. Clinias: What tales? Athenian: The tale of the teeth that were sown, and how armed men sprang out of them. Here, indeed, the lawgiver has a notable example of how one can, if he tries, persuade the souls of the young of anything, so that the only question he has to consider in his inventing is what would do most good to the State, if it were believed; and then he must devise all possible means to ensure that the whole of the community constantly, so long as they live, use exactly the same language, so far as possible, about these matters, alike in their songs, their tales, and their discourses. If you, however, think otherwise, I have no objection to your arguing in the opposite sense. Clinias: Neither of us, I think, could possibly argue against your view.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Christians do deny what this means. Christians deny that Jesus promised an imminent return, that the accounts of Mary Magdelene at the tomb in Mt and Jn contradict one another, that Christ expects you to give to those that ask of you, etc, so I wouldn't be surprised if they deny that Eusebius is defending lying. Up is down and black is white for Christians.

Jon-Since Eusebius is arguing against the Bishop of Rome with regards to Easter we would expect him to put a positive spin on the harmony and agreement that people came to over and against his opponent."

Jason-What are you referring to? Eusebius lived in the third and fourth centuries. He was discussing a controversy over Easter in the second century.

My mistake. I mistakenly thought from what I read that Eusebius was engaged in the controversy. But it is true that Christian historians prefer to put a positive "harmonious" face on Christian events. George Salmon is a pretty good historian and a dedicated Christian, and it pains him to dwell on the evils of the early Christians, but of course he must in order to make his argument against Rome's claims. Here are some of his words from The Infallibility of the Church.

Coming now to speak of General Councils, I feel it to be a disagreeable thing that the extravagant claims made by our adversaries for both Popes and Councils force me to dwell on the frailties and imperfections of what is on the whole entitled to the respect and gratitude of the Church. It is a disagreeable thing when a man for whom you have on many grounds respect and liking is proposed with extravagant laudations as a candidate for a situation for which you believe him to be totally unfit. If it is impossible for you to acquiesce, the mistaken zeal of his friends may then force you to give proof of his unfitness, by stating things over, which, if you might, you would gladly have cast a veil.....Similarly I should be glad to dwell altogether on the services rendered by Councils to the Church; but when claims are made for the authority of Councils to which they have no pretensions, we are forced to give evidence how unfounded these claims are.

Clearly unity and harmony would be what Salmon would want to focus on, as would any Christian. I certainly regarded the bitter divisions amongst Christians to be a scandal when I was a Christian and I wouldn't want to emphasize it.

What do you mean by "another one of those cases"? What else have I argued against from Polycarp?

Polycarp is not the issue. The issue is that an apostolic tradition counts if it doesn't threaten orthodoxy, but does count if it supports it or doesn't harm it. I think it would be interesting to compile a list of supposed apostolic traditions from Irenaeus, Polycarp, Papias, and anyone else sufficiently early and see which ones you accepted. I would predict that it would only be those which helped you or didn't harm you.

And where have I argued against his view of celebrating Easter?

Do you believe he did it as he did because this is how the Apostle John did it? Maybe this doesn't harm you so you might accept it, but then you would have to admit that virtually the whole Christian world early on was united against this apostolic tradition (according to Eusebius).

"Anyway, what I'm suggesting is that there is not a lot of information about these councils, so it's a little presumptuous to assume nothing but positive things."

You're changing the subject. You cited Cyril of Alexandria's behavior in the context of a fifth century church council. I responded by saying that Christian councils of earlier centuries hadn't involved such behavior. You said "Prove it." I gave you documentation, and you acknowledged that it's probable that the sort of violence you had in mind didn't occur at these early councils. But now you claim that the issue is whether we should "assume nothing but positive things" about the councils. The reason why you're reframing the issue is because you were wrong about the original framing of it.

You write:

"What does high moral standards mean? High is a relative term, so I assume you mean 'better than average.' That's what I mean with 'exceptional' integrity. I don't see that they have better than average integrity."

No, as I explained to you before, the early Christians don't have to have been above an average in order to have had high standards. On an issue like forgeries, you can't take a higher position than to oppose them. If most people opposed them, the early Christians wouldn't have had to have higher standards than most people in order to have high standards. The early Christians did have better than average standards on some issues, as the sources I cited in my last post mention, but the high standards I'm referring to don't require that everybody else or even most other people had lesser standards.

You write:

"You point to those that opposed the creation of forgeries as if this removes the underlying problem. But the fact remains the widespread uproar about forgeries is for the very reason that Christian forgeries were a huge problem."

How does saying that the early Christians opposed forgeries suggest that I'm denying the "underlying problem" that some people produced forgeries? Some Americans produce forgeries. Would it be a significant argument against Jon Curry's credibility to keep mentioning that forgeries are produced in America?

You write:

"Even (pseudo) Paul is battling forgeries."

Once again, you make a claim without offering any documentation. Assuming that you have one of the canonical Pauline documents in mind, what is the document's opposition to forgeries supposed to prove against Christianity? Forgeries existed in the ancient Roman world as well, and they exist in modern societies.

You write:

"Further, insofar as we have a lot of evidence regarding the precedings of councils we further have a lot of evidence of unethical behavior. You want to limit the discussion to only early councils for which there is little evidence one way or the other."

You're using the broad category of "unethical behavior", which you don't define or justify. Then you claim that we have "little evidence" about the earliest councils. I doubt that you know much about the councils, and I doubt that you know much about the people involved in them. Again, if you want us to believe that Christians in general were engaging in "unethical behavior" that's somehow relevant to the issues we've been discussing, then you need to document your claim. Objecting that there's "little evidence" doesn't justify your argument.

The reason why I've focused on the early councils is because we had originally been discussing issues of document attribution. Such issues had already been well established by the time we get to somebody like Cyril of Alexandria in the fifth century. If you want to accuse earlier Christians of behaving in a particular way, then document your claim. If you want to argue that later behavior has some particular significance, then explain what significance you have in mind.

You write:

"But what is typical of Christian assemblies that we have evidence for is bad behavior."

We have evidence for the earlier councils I mentioned. If you want us to think that it's probable that there was "bad behavior" at those earlier councils, then you need to explain why you reach that conclusion. Assuming that "bad behavior" would be found if we had more evidence isn't sufficient. There have been many councils throughout church history, including in recent years. The sort of behavior engaged in by somebody like Cyril of Alexandria hasn't been duplicated in every council since that time, and we can't assume that it was duplicated in every council beforehand.

You write:

"On your view we have to assume that what was true in the 4th and 5th centuries is very different from what was true in the 2nd or 3rd. Why should we believe that?"

First of all, you need to document your assertions about the fourth and fifth centuries. I don't know what you specifically have in mind. Do you realize how many councils occurred during those centuries? Secondly, we have accounts of the earlier councils that, by your own admission, suggest that it's probable that the sort of behavior you criticized Cyril of Alexandria for didn't occur. Since there's nothing in Christianity that calls for the sort of violence you've referred to, since the earliest Christians wrote against such behavior, and since the records of the early councils don't suggest that such behavior occurred, why are we supposed to think that it did? And if you want to shift the focus to some other type of behavior you disapprove of, then why should we accept such a shifting standard? Nobody claims that Christians are sinless, so the fact that you can find something you disapprove of at some church councils doesn't do much to further your case.

You write:

"It's not enough to show that they weren't violent. There needs to be examples of out of the ordinary moral behavior if you are going to claim high moral standards."

I've already explained why that argument is fallacious. "Out of the ordinary moral behavior" isn't needed for my argument to be valid, and church councils aren't the only context in which Christians lived. The large majority of Christians never attended a church council.

I didn't see a single documented citation of Salmon or Newman. I saw a paragraph in which you referred to three councils, Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and you referred to some of Cyril of Alexandria's behavior outside of a council. Your objection to Nicaea was the following:

"At Nicea the early fathers stopped their ears rather than listen to the arguments of Arias."

Some stopped their ears, much as some people today leave a room if somebody they morally object to is speaking. The opinions of Arius were already well known to many people, including church leaders, who would interact with his views at length. You go on to refer to "dirty political tactics" at the Council of Constantinople and the behavior of Cyril of Alexandria. Again, how does any of this logically lead to the conclusion that Christians in general behave in such a manner, and what does this have to do with the issues of document attribution that we were discussing?

You write:

"What I'm saying with regards to Cyril or Nicea or Constantinople is that this doesn't seem to be the case where we actually have evidence. Why should we accept your claim when we don't have any evidence."

Earlier, you responded to the evidence I cited by acknowledging that it's probable that the earliest church councils didn't involve the sort of behavior you've criticized Cyril of Alexandria for. Later, you said that we have "little" evidence to go by. Now you're saying that we "don't have any evidence" for those earlier councils. Which is it?

We know what sort of moral standards the early Christians had. We have large amounts of literature from them, including treatises on moral subjects. We have thousands of pages of material from the ante-Nicene era, including evidence from non-Christian sources. See the material I linked to in my last post for some examples.

You write:

"This is from Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31."

Did you get this argument from Richard Carrier? He uses the text just as you've posted it.

The work of Eusebius you're referring to is here:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_12_book12.htm

Here's how Eusebius applies the words of Plato:

"Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction." (Preparation For The Gospel, 12:31)

What is Eusebius discussing? The forging of documents or some other such thing? No, he's discussing anthropomorphisms. He's referring to figures of speech. See Roger Pearse's material on this passage at:

Both Eusebius' authorship of the chapter title you quoted and the translation of it are disputed. The original context of Plato doesn't seem to support your interpretation, and Eusebius tells us what interpretation he's applying to the passage. He refers to anthropomorphisms, which aren't equivalent to lying as commonly defined.

The historian Paul Maier, in his translation of Eusebius' church history, refers to Eusebius as "scrupulously honest not only in acknowledging his sources but also in confessing the trepidation with which he undertook his task" (Eusebius - The Church History [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1999], p. 17). John McGuckin refers to "his high and honest regard for the ancient documents" (The Westminster Handbook To Patristic Theology [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004], p. 128). "If Eusebius' interpretation of these documents [used in his church history] was sometimes in error, this is to be explained by his want of critical judgement and not by conscious perversion of the facts." (F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary Of The Christian Church [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], p. 574)

You write:

"My mistake. I mistakenly thought from what I read that Eusebius was engaged in the controversy."

Which is another example of how much you know about church history.

You write:

"George Salmon is a pretty good historian and a dedicated Christian, and it pains him to dwell on the evils of the early Christians, but of course he must in order to make his argument against Rome's claims."

Salmon was a historian in a secondary sense, not by training. And your citation of him isn't accompanied by any page numbers or comparable documentation, and it isn't about "the early Christians" in general. As I told you before, there were many councils other than the ones commonly considered ecumenical today, and the first ecumenical council didn't occur until the fourth century. Do you think that Salmon would have transferred his comments about somebody like Cyril of Alexandria to somebody like the apostle Paul, Polycarp, Cyprian, or Athanasius? For you to ignore the moral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, ignore the evidence we have for the moral standards of the earliest Christians, and ignore the sort of material on this subject that I documented in my last post, all the while focusing on what you disapprove of by a small fraction of the Christian population at a few later church councils, is ridiculous. You refer to Cyril's involvement in "torture", how Eusebius supported "lying", etc. When you were a professing Christian, were you a torturer, liar, etc.? Is your wife (assuming she's still a professing Christian)? Do you think that men like Peter, Polycarp, and Irenaeus can be classified as such?

You write:

"Polycarp is not the issue."

Yes, he is. You made an accusation involving Polycarp. Document your accusation. Don't look for something you haven't found yet. Document something you already have, since you made the accusation as if I'd already done it. Document where I argued for rejecting apostolic tradition from Polycarp on some other issue. I didn't argue for it on the Easter issue, nor did I argue for it on some other issue. Your accusation was false.

You write:

"I think it would be interesting to compile a list of supposed apostolic traditions from Irenaeus, Polycarp, Papias, and anyone else sufficiently early and see which ones you accepted. I would predict that it would only be those which helped you or didn't harm you."

In other words, you're suggesting again that I'm using some unreasonable standard for determining what I accept and what I reject. You keep repeating the accusation, but you don't prove it. Anybody could make the same accusation against you with a similar lack of documentation.

You write:

"Do you believe he did it as he did because this is how the Apostle John did it? Maybe this doesn't harm you so you might accept it, but then you would have to admit that virtually the whole Christian world early on was united against this apostolic tradition (according to Eusebius)."

Yes, I accept Polycarp's testimony on the issue. And as I explained to you earlier, it's a matter of church discipline, not doctrinal truth. As we see in Paul's writings, for example, different people can recognize holidays in different ways (Romans 14:4-6). As I explained earlier, it probably was a matter of different apostles recognizing Easter in different ways or allowing their disciples to have differences. When Polycarp was alive, he disagreed with Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, on the issue, but they were at peace with one another.

You're changing the subject. You cited Cyril of Alexandria's behavior in the context of a fifth century church council. I responded by saying that Christian councils of earlier centuries hadn't involved such behavior. You said "Prove it." I gave you documentation, and you acknowledged that it's probable that the sort of violence you had in mind didn't occur at these early councils. But now you claim that the issue is whether we should "assume nothing but positive things" about the councils. The reason why you're reframing the issue is because you were wrong about the original framing of it.

I've granted your point that they weren't violent. With that settled do you want to do nothing but continue to dwell on it? I'm saying let's start with that assumption and see where that leads us. I'm saying, don't forget the original point. It is your argument that early Christians had high moral standards. Does the fact that early councils weren't as violent as Ephesus show that they had high moral standards? I don't think so.

No, as I explained to you before, the early Christians don't have to have been above an average in order to have had high standards. On an issue like forgeries, you can't take a higher position than to oppose them.

Yes, but anybody that even has a pretense of honesty can't take any position other than to oppose them. It seems you expect people to say things like "Forgeries are great. It's great to trick everyone into thinking Christianity is true" to reject your position that they had high moral standards. Reality is a little more subtle than that.

Some Americans produce forgeries. Would it be a significant argument against Jon Curry's credibility to keep mentioning that forgeries are produced in America?

The use of forgeries was far more widespread then as it is today. Further the copies made then were far more likely to be doctored up than are copies of books today. Printing houses prevent such things. Part of this is just supply and demand. Today people are more likely to be caught, and nobody likes getting caught doing such things, so it is less likely that people will forge documents.

Once again, you make a claim without offering any documentation. Assuming that you have one of the canonical Pauline documents in mind, what is the document's opposition to forgeries supposed to prove against Christianity?

It shows how widespread forgeries are. Of the hundreds of books I own by modern authors I don't think I have a single one that discusses another modern author that is really forging things in another person's name. Such as Norman Geisler saying that J.P. Moreland didn't really write "Scaling the Secular City" but in fact it was William Lane Craig. Yet we see this in II Thess 2:

"1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.

So clearly there is already a problem with Pauline forgeries. Most scholars regard II Thess as a forgery itself. This statement appears to be an attempt to undo damage from I Thess indicating that the end was near. Further, since the author is beating the drum about forgeries that causes suspicion that he could well be one of the forgers. Another indication are the comments at the end of the letter at 3:17:

I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.

This is a literary device intended to communicate that the writer is authentic. Suppose you are a forger and you want to communicate that this letter is genuine. You include a statement like this and show your friends the text and you say "See, this really was from Paul, because we know he had a weird way of writing. Of course we can't see the weird letters here because this is just a copy, but we really must have the genuine article."

But this is not how a person would really write a letter. It's as if I were to type I AM WRITING BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS RIGHT NOW. If I really am writing in italics or in bold I just let the font speak for itself. I don't talk about the way the letters look. Or when I sign my name I don't talk about my unique loops. I just sign it and anybody can see for themselves that it is my unique style. For this and other reasons II Thess is regarded as pseudonymous as well. Forgeries are abundant in this time period.

If you want to accuse earlier Christians of behaving in a particular way, then document your claim. If you want to argue that later behavior has some particular significance, then explain what significance you have in mind.

I've already documented my claim. I've pointed out the many, many pseudonymous gospels and epistles. I've talked about clear instances of fabrication in the gospels themselves, such at Mk 16:9-20. I've talked about the spurious insertions into Josephus writings first "discovered" by Eusebius. This is merely the tip of the iceberg, and it's all done by the earliest Christians. I challenge you to find a similar level of forgery in modern times. Take a subject or a character. Maybe Clinton. How many people have written biographies or other histories about Clinton? Of those biographers, how many presented themselves as someone they were not? The reason you don't have a lot of uproar about people pseudonymously writing biographies of Clinton is because this is exceedingly rare. The reason there is uproar in early Christianity is because it is not rare amongst the earliest Christians.

I've already explained the significance of Cyril and I've also explained that it is your burden to show that early Christians had high moral standards, not mine to show they were unethical. You just keep talking around this point.

"Out of the ordinary moral behavior" isn't needed for my argument to be valid,

I think it is.

I didn't see a single documented citation of Salmon or Newman.

My information is from Salmon's two chapters on General Councils. I am not directly quoting him, but I'm simply summarizing the evidence he puts forward over the two chapters. I am working from the Word documents so I'm not sure page numbers would correspond with the book, but you can do a keyword search to find everything I refer to. I assume you have the Word documents since they were on Svendsen's website. I was actually the one that brought them to his attention and he linked to them after that. If you don't have them let me know and I will send them if you would like them.

The opinions of Arius were already well known to many people, including church leaders, who would interact with his views at length.

Stopping your ears is good enough because you think they knew his positions well enough? This is a really bad attitude in my view. I expect more of people with "high ethical standards."

Earlier, you responded to the evidence I cited by acknowledging that it's probable that the earliest church councils didn't involve the sort of behavior you've criticized Cyril of Alexandria for. Later, you said that we have "little" evidence to go by. Now you're saying that we "don't have any evidence" for those earlier councils. Which is it?

Both are true. We can be confident they didn't get violent without knowing particulars that would reveal to us whether or not they engaged in unethical behavior. That's the way history works. You can be confident that Ceasar crossed the Rubicon, but when you start getting into more detailed claims your confidence level is forced to drop.

Did you get this argument from Richard Carrier? He uses the text just as you've posted it.

I copied and pasted from Richard Carrier because it was convenient. Is that a problem? I became aware of this quote from various sources.

Here's how Eusebius applies the words of Plato:

It's not as if I didn't provide that section.

What is Eusebius discussing? The forging of documents or some other such thing? No, he's discussing anthropomorphisms. He's referring to figures of speech.

He's certainly talking about figures of speech, but that's not all he's talking about. Here is some relevant information from Carrier.

Regarding Eusebius' use of this and other passages in book 12, Edwin Hamilton Gifford says "In Books X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed from the older theology and philosophy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on the supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses." (Introduction, Preparation for the Gospel, 1903). So in a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing. Someone who can accept this as a "good idea" worth both taking credit for and following is not the sort of person to be trusted.

So it's not simply the case of saying anthropomorphisms are OK. He's saying that Plato's view that it is good to lie for the sake of the state is justified by the example of anthropomorphisms in Scripture, and further that Scripture is the source of Plato's belief. This is a defense of a general principle, not a defense of a single instance of falsehood such as an anthropomorphism.

Further quotes from Eusebius have a direct bearing on our discussion about whether or not he would record things for Christians in a positive way. I'll quote from the website you provided:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/eusebius_the_liar.htm

Here is the Ante-Nicene Fathers text, from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2:

Chapter II. The Destruction of the Churches.

1 All these things were fulfilled in us, when we saw with our own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and the Divine and Sacred Scriptures committed to the flames in the midst of the market-places, and the shepherds of the churches basely hidden here and there, and some of them captured ignominiously, and mocked by their enemies. When also, according to another prophetic word, "Contempt was poured out upon rulers, and he caused them to wander in an untrodden and pathless way."

2 But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment.

3 Hence we shall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be usefull first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity. Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the sacred conflicts of the witnesses of the Divine Word.

Pearson says "Oh, he just has a lot of material to cover, so he's saying he must limit it." Doesn't appear that way to me. He's recording only what vindicates the Divine judgement and what is useful for him and posterity.

Salmon was a historian in a secondary sense, not by training. And your citation of him isn't accompanied by any page numbers or comparable documentation, and it isn't about "the early Christians" in general. As I told you before, there were many councils other than the ones commonly considered ecumenical today, and the first ecumenical council didn't occur until the fourth century. Do you think that Salmon would have transferred his comments about somebody like Cyril of Alexandria to somebody like the apostle Paul, Polycarp, Cyprian, or Athanasius? For you to ignore the moral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, ignore the evidence we have for the moral standards of the earliest Christians, and ignore the sort of material on this subject that I documented in my last post, all the while focusing on what you disapprove of by a small fraction of the Christian population at a few later church councils, is ridiculous. You refer to Cyril's involvement in "torture", how Eusebius supported "lying", etc. When you were a professing Christian, were you a torturer, liar, etc.? Is your wife (assuming she's still a professing Christian)? Do you think that men like Peter, Polycarp, and Irenaeus can be classified as such?

You quote me, then write all this material, and none of it has anything to do with what you quoted. I'm talking about how Christian historians prefer to focus on things which show Christians in a positive light. Nothing you have above has anything to do with that. This is what I mean by the "fog machine." Lots of verbiage and no substance. If you just want to pontificate then don't quote me and put a response under what I say. Just start typing and write whatever you want. You give the illusion of a response without actually providing a response.

Yes, he is. You made an accusation involving Polycarp. Document your accusation.

I get the feeling that you are playing a game of "gotcha." This is not about communicating and attempting to understand. If you can take an ambiguous statement and interpret it in an incoherent way, you'll do that and act like you've caught an error. It doesn't even matter if that error helps your case or hurts it. As long as you've got one that's good enough. For a long time you've been focusing on a big horrible error of mine where I was wrong in my guess that there was textual evidence for a text in the 3rd century but in fact it was latter than that. This is an example of how what I say is "misleading." I deviously acted like Christians had early textual evidence. Wow. So very dishonest.

What I am saying is that this is another one of those cases where you leave apostolic traditions you don't like (in this particular case from Polycarp) and take the ones you like. We've talked about Papias absurd apostolic traditions, Irenaeus absurd apostolic traditions, and now Polycarp's apostolic traditions. So the emphasis is on you accepting some traditions and rejecting others and there seems to be a pretty strong correlation between acceptance of traditions and their positive impact on your arguments. What kind of sense does it make for me to limit the discussion only to the apostolic traditions from Polycarp? It would make no sense at all, and I've already told you where the emphasis in my statement lies. Are you going to continue to ignore my clarification and demand that I defend what I'm not arguing? Why don't we actually just argue instead of playing games.

When Polycarp was alive, he disagreed with Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, on the issue, but they were at peace with one another.

That's the other problem with using this issue as evidence that the early Christians had "high moral standards." It's easy to get along when the issue is not critical. It's easy to appear like a nice person when you don't have a difficult conflict. What happens when the issues get more intense? This is good advice for dating. Of course she's nice when you first start dating. Everything is peaches and cream. You need to watch her when she gets into an argument. How does she treat you when you are fighting? How does she treat others when she fights with them? How does she react when she's been wrong, or does she ever admit that she's wrong? The date for the celebration of Easter is minor. Perhaps everyone kept their cool. Add a more serious conflict and watch what happens. Or add a situation where someone thinks they've been wronged. Do they react with charity, love, and grace, or is it bitter backstabbing and violence.

I'm going to re-emphasize the point you continue to sidestep. I'm not arguing that the behavior of 5th century councils proves the behavior of 3rd century councils. In the same way I never argued that gullibility of some people living in 1st century Palestine proved the gullibility of all people in 1st century Palestine. What I'm doing is taking the only evidence we have available to us and establishing a general pattern. If everything we have shows you to be mistaken, then for you to claim these people had high moral standards you must overcome an initial presumption against it. Your evidence is that they opposed forgeries and (according to a historian that seems to want to only record those things which show Christians in a positive way, as would any Christian) they didn't get violent over a minor disagreement. I think your first point in fact demonstrates the widespread problem of forgeries and your second point is just weak.

"It is your argument that early Christians had high moral standards. Does the fact that early councils weren't as violent as Ephesus show that they had high moral standards? I don't think so."

I was responding to your comments about church councils. I didn't limit an evaluation of early Christian morality to that issue, though. To the contrary, before I cited any of the earliest councils I gave you documentation for early Christian views on document attribution, which is the issue most directly relevant to what we had been discussing. I also cited other material on other moral issues, most of which you've ignored.

You write:

"Yes, but anybody that even has a pretense of honesty can't take any position other than to oppose them. It seems you expect people to say things like 'Forgeries are great. It's great to trick everyone into thinking Christianity is true' to reject your position that they had high moral standards. Reality is a little more subtle than that."

I didn't just refer to "a pretense of honesty". I and the sources I cited have addressed the early Christians' concern for eyewitness testimony, their view of apostolic authority, their opposition to pseudonymity, and other relevant issues. If you want us to believe that there was only a "pretense of honesty" among the early Christians, then you need to explain why.

You write:

"The use of forgeries was far more widespread then as it is today."

How do you know that, and what relevance do you think it has? Forgeries can be more common in one era of history than another, yet people living in both eras can make sufficient effort to distinguish between the true and the false.

You write:

"Further the copies made then were far more likely to be doctored up than are copies of books today. Printing houses prevent such things. Part of this is just supply and demand. Today people are more likely to be caught, and nobody likes getting caught doing such things, so it is less likely that people will forge documents."

Books aren't the only means of forgery. Forgeries occur by means of the internet and in other contexts as well.

But how does your assertion that forgeries are less common today address what I said? If the existence of forgeries among professing Christians is significant evidence against the credibility of the Christian majority that opposed the practice, then is the existence of forgeries among modern Americans significant evidence against Jon Curry's credibility?

You write:

"Of the hundreds of books I own by modern authors I don't think I have a single one that discusses another modern author that is really forging things in another person's name."

Again, books aren't the only means of carrying out forgeries. I get forged e-mails frequently. Written letters and other purported documents of historical figures are often forged. (For a recent example, see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2330457,00.html.)

You write:

"So clearly there is already a problem with Pauline forgeries."

Nobody denies that there were forgeries. Paul and people who knew him were alive to oppose the forgeries when 2 Thessalonians was written. If the document didn't begin circulating until after Paul and those who knew him were dead, then that lateness would itself be a major difficulty for any forger to overcome. If you're going to say that there was "a problem with Pauline forgeries" just because forgeries existed, then every society can be said to have had "a problem with forgeries".

You write:

"Most scholars regard II Thess as a forgery itself."

I don't know what the latest percentage is, but the rejection of 2 Thessalonians didn't become popular until just recently (D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction To The New Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005], p. 536). Whatever the latest percentage is, a far larger percentage of modern scholars believe that Jesus existed, yet you reject that conclusion.

You write:

"This statement appears to be an attempt to undo damage from I Thess indicating that the end was near."

I've already documented, in our previous discussions, that Pauline documents accepted across the scholarly spectrum (1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians) refer to the possibility that Paul's generation would be dead when Jesus returned. I've also documented that the early Christians had to respond to objections to the slowness of prophecy fulfillment, but not objections to the failure of a prophecy that Jesus would return by the end of His generation. If the early Christians didn't have to respond to the latter objection, and their critics used the former objection rather than the latter, then why should we think that the latter was an issue? Your proposed reason for a forging of 2 Thessalonians is dubious.

You write:

"Further, since the author is beating the drum about forgeries that causes suspicion that he could well be one of the forgers."

If forgeries existed in the ancient world, why would it "cause suspicion" for Paul to write against one?

You write:

"This is a literary device intended to communicate that the writer is authentic. Suppose you are a forger and you want to communicate that this letter is genuine. You include a statement like this and show your friends the text and you say 'See, this really was from Paul, because we know he had a weird way of writing. Of course we can't see the weird letters here because this is just a copy, but we really must have the genuine article.'"

Your scenario is unrealistic. If the letter began circulating when Paul, his disciples, or other relevant sources were still alive, then they could be consulted. If Paul was dead at the time, then there would be a lot of suspicion from that fact alone. The concept that something like 2 Thessalonians 3:17 would be sufficient to overcome suspicion is ridiculous, and it's contrary to what we know about the process other documents went through in early Christian circles. Consultation of eyewitnesses, comparison of manuscripts, analysis of language, and other methods we use today were known to the early Christians and are mentioned by them in discussions of the New Testament documents.

You write:

"But this is not how a person would really write a letter. It's as if I were to type I AM WRITING BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS RIGHT NOW. If I really am writing in italics or in bold I just let the font speak for itself. I don't talk about the way the letters look. Or when I sign my name I don't talk about my unique loops. I just sign it and anybody can see for themselves that it is my unique style."

Philemon is one of the commonly accepted Pauline documents, and it has Paul explaining that his handwriting is being used (Philemon 19). See also 1 Corinthians 16:21, Galatians 6:11, and Colossians 4:18. The reason why Paul would mention his writing style is to communicate the fact that he's including that identifying mark in all of his letters. The forger didn't include it, and Paul's point would be that the Thessalonians should expect that mark in all of his letters (at least from that point onward), not just some. If Paul is going to include some of his own writing in a document like 2 Thessalonians, then he's going to have to write something. What Paul states in 2 Thessalonians 3:17 is as good as anything else. You say that "anybody can see for themselves that it is my unique style", but handwriting doesn't speak for itself. You have to have a way of associating it with a person. The contacts between Paul and the Thessalonians would be able to verify that the style in question is Paul's. And even if they had already identified what his handwriting looked like, Paul had to write something in order for them to have something to see as verification, and a statement like the one in 2 Thessalonians 3 would serve the double purpose of emphasizing Paul's point and giving the Thessalonians verification at the same time.

You write:

"Forgeries are abundant in this time period."

And they're abundant today. The early Christians were aware of the existence of forgeries, as was the larger world in general, and steps were taken to distinguish between the true and the false. Again, see the material I wrote on this subject in my posts in the relevant threads and the material I cited from Glenn Miller, D.A. Carson, and Douglas Moo.

You write:

"I've talked about clear instances of fabrication in the gospels themselves, such at Mk 16:9-20. I've talked about the spurious insertions into Josephus writings first 'discovered' by Eusebius. This is merely the tip of the iceberg, and it's all done by the earliest Christians."

Josephus wasn't even discussed by the large majority of Christians, and we have evidence against the interpolations in question that we don't have against the documents you're rejecting, like 2 Thessalonians.

Mark 16 does more to undermine your case than support it. The passage was so widely rejected that Jerome refers to how "almost all" Greek manuscripts lack it (Bruce Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament [New York: Oxford University Press, 1992], p. 226). We don't have evidence against a document like 2 Thessalonians comparable to the evidence we have against the false endings of Mark, and the early Christians responded to 2 Thessalonians differently than they responded to the false endings of Mark.

I had written:

"'Out of the ordinary moral behavior' isn't needed for my argument to be valid"

And you responded:

"I think it is."

You aren't telling us why you think it is.

You write:

"My information is from Salmon's two chapters on General Councils. I am not directly quoting him, but I'm simply summarizing the evidence he puts forward over the two chapters. I am working from the Word documents so I'm not sure page numbers would correspond with the book, but you can do a keyword search to find everything I refer to."

I'm familiar with the online version, and I have the book. The point is that you should cite a source, whether page numbers or an URL. You need to make more of an effort to provide documentation.

You write:

"Stopping your ears is good enough because you think they knew his positions well enough? This is a really bad attitude in my view."

I didn't say that everybody "knew his positions well enough". The point is that just saying that they covered their ears isn't sufficient to make your case.

You write:

"We can be confident they didn't get violent without knowing particulars that would reveal to us whether or not they engaged in unethical behavior. That's the way history works. You can be confident that Ceasar crossed the Rubicon, but when you start getting into more detailed claims your confidence level is forced to drop."

Again, we aren't limited to church councils. That's why I've cited a large amount of evidence from other contexts, most of which you've ignored. My comments about church councils were written in response to some comments you made about later councils.

You write:

"I copied and pasted from Richard Carrier because it was convenient. Is that a problem?"

You should have cited a source, especially given that the translation was partially Carrier's, which means that we couldn't get it anywhere else.

You write:

"He's certainly talking about figures of speech, but that's not all he's talking about. Here is some relevant information from Carrier."

Carrier's claims are addressed by Roger Pearse in the material I linked to. You need to interact with what Pearse has documented rather than repeating what Richard Carrier said.

You write:

"He's saying that Plato's view that it is good to lie for the sake of the state is justified by the example of anthropomorphisms in Scripture, and further that Scripture is the source of Plato's belief."

Again, the use of the word "lie" is addressed by Pearse. If you want to continue using it, then address his arguments. Eusebius quotes Plato, followed by Clinias, then makes some comments of his own. The comments are about anthropomorphisms in scripture. To conclude that Eusebius thought that scripture lies is absurd.

You write:

"Pearson says 'Oh, he just has a lot of material to cover, so he's saying he must limit it.' Doesn't appear that way to me. He's recording only what vindicates the Divine judgement and what is useful for him and posterity."

In addition to getting Pearse's name wrong, it doesn't seem that you gave much attention to what you read from his article. The section you quoted is about one portion of Eusebius' work, in which he was explaining why he included the material he included in that portion. Being selective in what material you cover isn't dishonest, especially if you tell the reader that you're doing so.

You write:

"You quote me, then write all this material, and none of it has anything to do with what you quoted."

After I quoted you, I responded to something in that quote, then I went on to mention what you cited from George Salmon. I wasn't limiting my comments to what I had just quoted. I was also addressing what you cited from Salmon, as I explained. You're ignoring what I said on the basis that it wasn't a response to what I had quoted. I didn't claim that it was. But it was a response to what you've cited from George Salmon. Why don't you interact with what I wrote, then, instead of objecting that it isn't a response to what I had just quoted?

Again, you refer to Cyril's involvement in "torture", how Eusebius supported "lying", etc. When you were a professing Christian, were you a torturer, liar, etc.? Is your wife (assuming she's still a professing Christian)? Do you think that men like Peter, Polycarp, and Irenaeus can be classified as such?

You write:

"So the emphasis is on you accepting some traditions and rejecting others and there seems to be a pretty strong correlation between acceptance of traditions and their positive impact on your arguments."

I've given reasons for accepting what I accept and rejecting what I reject. Instead of interacting with those reasons, you're accusing me of making my decisions on the basis of what I "like". As I've explained to you before, the same accusation could be made against you and against anybody else. Just as I accept some of the claims of a source like Irenaeus while rejecting other claims of that same source, so do you. Historians do the same with Josephus, Tacitus, etc.

You've mentioned Polycarp. Do you accept everything Polycarp believed? Do you reject everything he believed? Or do you accept some of his beliefs and reject others? When he refers to Jesus' resurrection, you reject his claim that Jesus rose from the dead. But does it therefore follow that you must also reject his belief that Paul wrote Philippians? No, it doesn't. Similarly, does your disagreement with Irenaeus over the authorship of John's gospel mean that you also must disagree with him about the authorship of Romans? Both of us accept some of what the patristic sources wrote and reject other portions. The difference is that I've done far more to justify my choices on these matters than you've done to justify yours. You keep making the accusation that I accept things and reject things according to what I "like", yet I've been offering more justification for my decisions than you've been offering for yours.

You write:

"What kind of sense does it make for me to limit the discussion only to the apostolic traditions from Polycarp?"

I didn't say that you have to only discuss Polycarp. I was responding to a comment you made about Polycarp, though, so it wouldn't make sense for me to respond to it by discussing Luke, Irenaeus, or Augustine. You made a claim about Polycarp, it was a false claim, and I corrected it.

You write:

"What I'm doing is taking the only evidence we have available to us and establishing a general pattern. If everything we have shows you to be mistaken, then for you to claim these people had high moral standards you must overcome an initial presumption against it. Your evidence is that they opposed forgeries and (according to a historian that seems to want to only record those things which show Christians in a positive way, as would any Christian) they didn't get violent over a minor disagreement."

Not only have you not "established a general pattern", but you were so ignorant of the examples I cited that you thought that Eusebius was part of the dispute over Easter involving Victor. Your comments above about Eusebius are misleading as well, since the passage you cited is just one portion of Eusebius' work, in which he mentions that his focus is going to be on what faithful Christians did during the events in question. But that passage itself mentions what other people involved in the events had done, and the chapter before it does. Besides, I didn't just cite Eusebius on the issue of early councils. I also cited other sources. Eusebius isn't the only source we have on the early councils, and you haven't given us any reason to reject what Eusebius wrote about them.

But, again, my comments on church councils were in response to what you wrote on that subject. I also cited material on document attribution, early Christian concern for eyewitness testimony, Christian involvement in charity, and other subjects. You've ignored most of what I cited.

Of course you didn't. I did. Why are you suggesting that I'm imparting my words to you?

In terms of your argument that the early Christians had high moral standards, I can only address one issue at a time. You talk about their rejection of forgeries, and I've addressed that. So you appeal to several other reasons you've given in other posts. But you have no reason to criticize me for critiquing the arguments of your recent post. Not every response of mine is a response to every argument you have ever made.

I and the sources I cited have addressed the early Christians' concern for eyewitness testimony, their view of apostolic authority, their opposition to pseudonymity, and other relevant issues.

Pseudonymity is the issue we've been discussing. As far as their concern for apostolicity, this also is bogus. They say they are concerned that the writing be apostolic. But how do they know something is apostolic? Is it a matter of textual criticism? Of course not. It starts with how widely accepted a writing is and also touches on other factors, such as whether or not the writing is orthodox. I'm not impressed by people saying "Only apostolic writings count, and since I want certain books it must be that those books are apostolic." That's not demonstrative of high moral standards.

One example of this test is of Bishop Serapion, which I quote via http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-criteria-of-apostolic-fathers.htm This is a conservative Christian perspective.

Orthodoxy: This theological concern led the early church to employ the "rule of faith" as the criterion of "orthodoxy" to determine which writings could be used in the church. Bishop Serapion (ca. 200) rejected the reading of the Gospel of Peter in church because of this criterion of truth. When asked by the church at Rhossus ... whether the Gospel of Peter could be read in their services, he at first agreed because it had an apostle's name attached. But later he reversed his decision saying, "since I have now learnt, from what has been told me, that their [the authors'] mind was lurking in some hole of heresy, I shall give diligence to come again to you; wherefore, brethren expect me quickly." His rejection was based upon the book's divergence from what was generally accepted as true in the churches. It was not because of its questionable authorship, though that may have played a small role, but because the theology was considered out of step with the "rule of faith" operating in the church. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Lee Martin McDonald, Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question, p 428, 2002)

If you want us to believe that there was only a "pretense of honesty" among the early Christians, then you need to explain why.

I have not argued that there is only a "pretense of honesty". This is misrepresentation.

How do you know that, and what relevance do you think it has? Forgeries can be more common in one era of history than another, yet people living in both eras can make sufficient effort to distinguish between the true and the false.

The issue is your claim to "high moral standards" amongst early Christians. If early Christians engage in widespread forging of documents, why should we accept your claim to high moral standards? That's the relevance of the issue. As to how I know it, it's just apparent. I've cited many examples. Forged documents represent a very large proportion of early Christian writings and a very low proportion of books on the bookshelf at Barnes and Noble.

Books aren't the only means of forgery. Forgeries occur by means of the internet and in other contexts as well.

If you want to lump early Christians in with junk mail distributors, I'm fine with that. Neither can be considered to have "high moral standards."

But how does your assertion that forgeries are less common today address what I said? If the existence of forgeries among professing Christians is significant evidence against the credibility of the Christian majority that opposed the practice, then is the existence of forgeries among modern Americans significant evidence against Jon Curry's credibility?

Because it's not about the mere existence of forgeries. It's the widespread existence of forgeries. Do you have a lot of experience with people on discussion boards presenting themselves as someone they are not? If so, then you should approach the question of my credibility with a bit of caution. You might also conclude that you must start with the presumption that a person you communicate with on the internet should not be trusted.

Again, books aren't the only means of carrying out forgeries. I get forged e-mails frequently.

Fine then. Early Christians are to be lumped in with those that fill your junk email box. Do you regard such people as having "high moral standards"?

Written letters and other purported documents of historical figures are often forged. (For a recent example, see

If it were often it wouldn't be written up in the paper. It's rare enough that it is news.

Nobody denies that there were forgeries.

I didn't say you denied it. You asked for documentation of Paul's admission of Pauline forgeries and I provided it. Now you respond as if I claim you deny the existence of early Pauline forgeries. I'm just providing you the documentation you asked for.

If the document didn't begin circulating until after Paul and those who knew him were dead, then that lateness would itself be a major difficulty for any forger to overcome.

How so?

If you're going to say that there was "a problem with Pauline forgeries" just because forgeries existed, then every society can be said to have had "a problem with forgeries".

It's not just that forgeries existed. It's that they were widespread relative to today. How often does a biographer of Clinton have to come out and say "Somebody is writing books in my name. Don't be taken in by this?" I'm unaware of that ever happening.

I don't know what the latest percentage is, but the rejection of 2 Thessalonians didn't become popular until just recently

What difference does that make?

Whatever the latest percentage is, a far larger percentage of modern scholars believe that Jesus existed, yet you reject that conclusion.

I don't think so. I recall you talking about how he implied that some would be alive and others dead, but people can die within a day, month, or year, so even though Paul may have expected Christ to come maybe within 10 years he might also expect that some alive at the time might be dead by then. The concern is that the return was expected to happen imminently, and now that people are starting to die, what can be made of that? Paul says don't worry about it. It's still soon, but some of us will be dead by then. Those that are dead will go first, then we who are alive and remain will go up next.

I've also documented that the early Christians had to respond to objections to the slowness of prophecy fulfillment, but not objections to the failure of a prophecy that Jesus would return by the end of His generation.

And I've responded to those arguments and shown them to be false.

If the early Christians didn't have to respond to the latter objection,

They did.

and their critics used the former objection rather than the latter,

This you don't know.

If forgeries existed in the ancient world, why would it "cause suspicion" for Paul to write against one?

I notice the question begging nature of your question. Why would their be suspicion if "Paul" wrote against it? Well of course there is no problem at all if in fact Paul is writing the letter, because in that case it would be authentic. But then, that's the very point in dispute.

It's just that since you have someone beating the drum about forgeries you know forgeries are a problem and you can't assume the author isn't himself a forger. Honest people are often oblivious to such things. At an early stage Paul would be a maverick missionary and wouldn't expect people to forge in his name, but now we're at the stage where Paul is famous, so people do like to forge in his name. You now have to start treating such texts with caution.

If Paul was dead at the time, then there would be a lot of suspicion from that fact alone.

I don't know why you would say this.

The concept that something like 2 Thessalonians 3:17 would be sufficient to overcome suspicion is ridiculous, and it's contrary to what we know about the process other documents went through in early Christian circles.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all.

Consultation of eyewitnesses, comparison of manuscripts, analysis of language, and other methods we use today were known to the early Christians and are mentioned by them in discussions of the New Testament documents.

Are you suggesting that the early Christians were just as competent then as we are today to recognize forgery with these methods?

Philemon is one of the commonly accepted Pauline documents, and it has Paul explaining that his handwriting is being used (Philemon 19). See also 1 Corinthians 16:21, Galatians 6:11, and Colossians 4:18.

These are all cause for suspicion of these documents. "I Paul" references are also suspicious as they are in many pseudonymous works as a dead give away to forgery. For example:

Gospel of Peter 14:3

But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our fishing nets and went to the sea. With us was Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord...

Testimony of the 12 Patriarchs III:2:

I Levi was conceived in Haran and born there,

Infancy Gospel of Thomas 1:1

I, Thomas the Israelite, am reporting to you, all my brothers from the nations, to reveal the childhood and the greatness of our Lord Jesus Christ, what he did in my country after he was born.

The reason why Paul would mention his writing style is to communicate the fact that he's including that identifying mark in all of his letters. The forger didn't include it, and Paul's point would be that the Thessalonians should expect that mark in all of his letters (at least from that point onward), not just some.

The reason a forger would say this is because he's attempting to pass of his document as authentic and is aware that Paul has a unique writing style so he attempts to communicate that knowledge in a very unrealistic way, talking about his weird writing style rather then simply letting the unique writing style speak for itself.

If Paul is going to include some of his own writing in a document like 2 Thessalonians, then he's going to have to write something.

No he doesn't. When you sign your name, do you include a discussion about how this is how you normally sign your name? Do you say "Notice the smiley face after Engwer. This is how I always do it, and this is a great way of preventing people from forging anything." You don't. You sign your name and people can tell it is yours.

You say that "anybody can see for themselves that it is my unique style", but handwriting doesn't speak for itself. You have to have a way of associating it with a person.

You do have to associate it, but for someone to simply talk about it and in his own document describe it is not helpful in proving that it is authentic. You need a separate independent proof for the authenticity. And if they have this they don't need him to talk about it. Which is why he wouldn't, and why you don't talk about your signature every time you sign an important document.

You asked for documentation of my claims and I'm simply repeating the documentation that I've already provided. In response to my direct answer to you you respond and say that nobody denies their were forgeries. You were the one who asked me for documentation of unethical behavior. Now you seem to switch subjects when the documentation is offered.

Josephus wasn't even discussed by the large majority of Christians, and we have evidence against the interpolations in question that we don't have against the documents you're rejecting, like 2 Thessalonians.

I don't know what your point is. You wanted examples of this type of behavior (early fraud) from Christians and I've provided it. None of the examples in the immediate discussion here that I offered you in response to your question are even disputed by Christians, so why are you bringing II Thess into the discussion?

Mark 16 does more to undermine your case than support it. The passage was so widely rejected that Jerome refers to how "almost all" Greek manuscripts lack it

That's not the point. The point is, Christian forgeries are widespread. Some are more effective than others. There are degrees to which the forger was successful (some working on you such as 2 Pet or 2 Thess), but the point is Christian forgeries are abundant.

We don't have evidence against a document like 2 Thessalonians comparable to the evidence we have against the false endings of Mark, and the early Christians responded to 2 Thessalonians differently than they responded to the false endings of Mark.

The point of the discussion we're having here is that there is abundant evidence of early Christian fraud. Don't ignore that issue and re-direct the discussion to the genuineness of 2 Thess.

Jason-Out of the ordinary moral behavior' isn't needed for my argument to be valid

Jon-I think it is.

Jason-You aren't telling us why you think it is.

People ordinarily believe what they want to believe. People ordinarily skew things in a direction favorable to themselves. People ordinarily read a particular text and see in it what they want to see. We can also see that (in the case where we have more detailed evidence) when Christians got together for councils they ordinarily (or at least routinely) act uncharitably. Not just 4th and 5th century councils, as I've documented, but subsequent councils, such as Trent or Vatican I. Are these early Christians nothing but ordinary in terms of their moral behavior? If so, skepticism is warranted.

The point is that you should cite a source, whether page numbers or an URL. You need to make more of an effort to provide documentation.

As I explained my description is a summary of Salmon's claims, so there are no direct citations.

I didn't say that everybody "knew his positions well enough". The point is that just saying that they covered their ears isn't sufficient to make your case.

I think stopping your ears is not just bad, but very bad. Particularly this issue. There is a reason it was widely accepted. It wasn't totally irrational.

You should have cited a source, especially given that the translation was partially Carrier's, which means that we couldn't get it anywhere else.

I did cite the source. Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31. You can look it up anywhere and verify the translation. There are many different translations of many of the early church fathers and neither of us always identifies who offered the translation. We provide the citation and anybody can look it up in any number of translations and decide if they think a particular translation is accurate.

Carrier's claims are addressed by Roger Pearse in the material I linked to. You need to interact with what Pearse has documented rather than repeating what Richard Carrier said.

If you are going to claim that Pearse responds to the argument then present it. When I direct you to a website and tell you precisely what to look at you respond and say you aren't going to take the time. Yet you offer various websites and expect me to wade through them all to find what you're referring to.

Again, the use of the word "lie" is addressed by Pearse. If you want to continue using it, then address his arguments.

You again are confusing assertion with argument. He says that it could also be interpreted as "fiction" or something like that. He doesn't say that it should be. In that case my interpretation is as good as anybody else's. But even with "fiction" things don't look good.

In addition to getting Pearse's name wrong,

Oooh. Gotcha. Maybe you should start a new thread about my falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Being selective in what material you cover isn't dishonest, especially if you tell the reader that you're doing so.

You're just ignoring what I wrote. He says he will only record that which is favorable to Christianity. That goes beyond simply being selective. This shows his mindset.

After I quoted you, I responded to something in that quote,

Something that had nothing to do with my argument. In your view Salmon isn't "technically" a historian. So what? What does that have to do with what I said? Absolutely nothing. The point is Christians prefer to put a positive spin on their own histories. Why don't you deal with that point?

I wasn't limiting my comments to what I had just quoted.

Clearly.

I was also addressing what you cited from Salmon, as I explained.

Are you saying that you decided to address a completely unrelated reference to Salmon?

You're ignoring what I said on the basis that it wasn't a response to what I had quoted......Again, you refer to Cyril's involvement in "torture", how Eusebius supported "lying", etc. When you were a professing Christian, were you a torturer, liar, etc.? Is your wife (assuming she's still a professing Christian)? Do you think that men like Peter, Polycarp, and Irenaeus can be classified as such?

I ignored what you said because it is so palpably irrational as to be irrelevant and not worth discussing. How can you even remotely attribute this position to me? You think I'm arguing that since Cyril was a torturer it therefore follows that every Christian is? Show me how what I've said logically entails such a view. This reveals a fundamental failure on your part to grasp my argument. It is such a radical misrepresentation that I have to conclude that it is deliberate and I feel no need to address such a gross distortion of what I'm saying. What is the point of offering correction when you don't want to see, but in fact you really want to misrepresent me?

As I've explained to you before, the same accusation could be made against you and against anybody else. Just as I accept some of the claims of a source like Irenaeus while rejecting other claims of that same source, so do you.

Wrong. You cannot accuse me of what I'm accusing you. You're missing the point here. I'm saying there is a strong correlation between you accepting traditions and the help that the traditions provide for your arguments. Demonstrate a similar correlation for me and you'll have a case. I'm not accepting Papias when he affirms Judas' head expansion and rejecting him when he talks about Mark. I distrust him altogether.

You've mentioned Polycarp. Do you accept everything Polycarp believed? Do you reject everything he believed? Or do you accept some of his beliefs and reject others? When he refers to Jesus' resurrection, you reject his claim that Jesus rose from the dead. But does it therefore follow that you must also reject his belief that Paul wrote Philippians? No, it doesn't.

Again, show that I accept him when it strengthens my view and reject him when he weakens my view. If that's true then it appears my own hopes are influencing what I accept. That's exactly what we see in your case. Acceptance of his view on Easter doesn't hurt you, so you accept it. Acceptance of Irenaeus view on John helps you so you accept it. Ireanaeus talks about Jesus living to 50 and that makes the Bible wrong, so you reject it. Papias talks about Judas' head expansion would show that the apostles are unreliable so you reject it. You exhibit a correlation based upon your own motivations and I do not.

"In terms of your argument that the early Christians had high moral standards, I can only address one issue at a time. You talk about their rejection of forgeries, and I've addressed that. So you appeal to several other reasons you've given in other posts. But you have no reason to criticize me for critiquing the arguments of your recent post. Not every response of mine is a response to every argument you have ever made."

I referred to the early Christians' opposition to forgeries. You wrongly objected as if I was only referring to a claim to be opposed to forgeries. Since your objection was based on a false premise, it was a false objection. And if the evidence I've given you in other threads is contrary to the objection you're raising, why would you raise the objection?

You write:

"As far as their concern for apostolicity, this also is bogus. They say they are concerned that the writing be apostolic. But how do they know something is apostolic? Is it a matter of textual criticism? Of course not. It starts with how widely accepted a writing is and also touches on other factors, such as whether or not the writing is orthodox."

You keep repeating arguments that have already been refuted. Part of the problem is that you leave threads in the middle of a discussion, claiming that you don't have time, then you go on to begin other discussions elsewhere, often ignoring what you were told in previous discussions.

As I told you in another thread, you have to explain why only documents of a particular age were commonly considered for canonicity. Why didn't the early Christians continue adding documents written by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Augustine, etc.? Since you acknowledge that the early Christians "say they are concerned that the writing be apostolic", then you're acknowledging the standard of apostolicity, even if you want to dispute how effectively it was applied. If only documents of a particular age were commonly considered, namely documents that can be dated to the first century, then it follows that there were standards in place sufficient to prevent something like the scenario mentioned above (the adding of writings of later generations). (Sometimes a document like 2 Peter will be dated to the second century, but usually within a generation of the apostles, and the rare cases of such a late dating are based on highly speculative argumentation. Every New Testament document can plausibly be dated to the first century, and even liberal scholars date the large majority of the documents to the first century.) We also know, as I explained to you before, that books written by disciples of the apostles in the late first or early second century were rejected, such as First Clement and Polycarp's Letter To The Philippians. We know that the early Christians were willing to dispute documents that had no objectionable teachings (2 and 3 John, for example). We know, further, that the early Christians were highly concerned about eyewitness testimony, that the early churches were highly networked, that they were aware of the potential of forgery, that the larger Roman world had developed methods of recognizing forgeries and had trained people in it, that the early Christians were aware of linguistic patterns and other elements of internal evidence, etc. There was a high degree of honesty and concern for evidence. A lot of these issues are discussed in Glenn Miller's article and in the other material I've cited and discussed in other threads.

You write:

"I'm not impressed by people saying 'Only apostolic writings count, and since I want certain books it must be that those books are apostolic.' That's not demonstrative of high moral standards."

The early Christians didn't make the argument you're putting in their mouth. They thought highly of many documents outside of the New Testament. That's why so many of those documents were preserved. If they were accepting documents as apostolic just because they liked the books, then why do the books accepted as apostolic come from only the earliest years of church history? Why didn't they keep adding books from later generations? Why were highly regarded letters written by disciples of the apostles rejected (First Clement, Polycarp's Letter To The Philippians, etc.)? Why were books like 2 and 3 John disputed, despite their having no objectionable teaching?

You go on to cite the example of Serapion, a bishop of Antioch who lived in the late second and early third centuries. The web site you took the quote from has a lot of unreliable material, and the section on Serapion is an example. The account of Serapion and the Gospel Of Peter is found in Eusebius, Church History, 6:12. Eusebius quotes what Serapion wrote, and from it we learn that the claims made in the article you cited are misleading. The article claims that:

"When asked by the church at Rhossus ... whether the Gospel of Peter could be read in their services, he at first agreed because it had an apostle's name attached."

First of all, whether a book can be read isn't the same issue as whether it's canonical. Given that Serapion wasn't familiar with the book when the people in Rhossus mentioned it, and given that he didn't read it until later, he surely wasn't suggesting to the people of Rhossus that they read the book as canonical. Canonicity wasn't even an issue. He does refer to the canon when writing back to the people of Rhossus after he had read the Gospel Of Peter, but probably because by that time he had learned that the book claims apostolic authorship, which meant that it was making a claim relevant to canonicity. In other words, the initial issue was whether the document could be read, not whether it was canonical. The canon issue only came up later, when Serapion commented on it in the process of writing to the people of Rhossus.

Secondly, the article you quoted is wrong in claiming that Serapion recommended reading the Gospel Of Peter "because it had an apostle's name attached". Read Eusebius' account. Nowhere does Serapion say that he recommended reading the document because of its association with Peter's name. He refers to the document as having Peter's name associated with it by some people, but he doesn't tell us that the people who make that association are the ones who told him about the document initially. To the contrary, he refers to the people of Rhossus as "you" while referring to the people who associate the document with Peter as "they" (Eusebius, Church History, 6:12:4). If Serapion was initially recommending reading the document because of its purported authorship by Peter, then his initial response doesn't make sense. Why would he treat it as a minor issue ("If this is the only thing which occasions dispute among you", Eusebius, Church History, 6:12:4), then recommend reading the document without having read it himself? It makes more sense to conclude that Serapion was recommending reading the book without any intention of approving of it as an apostolic document. If we assume that he had heard of an association with Peter prior to making his recommendation to read the book, he may have thought of it as something as insignificant as a book about Peter, not a book supposedly by Peter.

Furthermore, the article you cited is incorrect when it states:

"His rejection was based upon the book's divergence from what was generally accepted as true in the churches. It was not because of its questionable authorship, though that may have played a small role, but because the theology was considered out of step with the 'rule of faith' operating in the church."

Here's what Serapion actually said:

"For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us." (Eusebius, Church History, 6:12:3)

Serapion is advocating the criterion of apostolicity, and he gives more than one reason for rejecting the Gospel Of Peter as non-apostolic. One reason is its heretical content, which he goes on to discuss, but another reason is that the document wasn't "handed down to us". Nowhere does Serapion say that the heretical nature of the document was his only reason for rejecting its canonicity, nor does he say that the apostolicity of the document was only a "small" factor. As I explained above, canonicity wasn't even at issue initially. But once he had read the document, he raised the issue when writing to the people of Rhossus.

Even if Serapion had only cited the heretical nature of the Gospel Of Peter as a justification for rejecting it, would such a position be equivalent to your characterization of "since I want certain books it must be that those books are apostolic"? No, it wouldn't. If somebody today would claim that a letter advocating Communism was written by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, we would have good reason to think that the letter probably isn't authentic. It wouldn't be because we disapprove of Communism. Rather, it would be because advocating Communism would be contrary to what we know of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. It would still be possible that other evidence would lead us to the conclusion that the letter is authentic, but we would have good reason for being initially skeptical. Contrary to what you're suggesting, we wouldn't be skeptical of the letter just because "we don't want it". Rather, our skepticism would be based on historical information we have about Ronald Reagan.

The "rule of faith" that the article you quoted refers to is a concept that involves historical evidence. It was discussed at length in the writings of men like Irenaeus and Tertullian. It was a set of core beliefs (monotheism, the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.) that were believed to have been passed down from the apostles, as evidenced by the testimony of eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the apostles and the testimony of the apostolic churches. Irenaeus discusses the concept in the third book of his treatise Against Heresies, for example. Your characterization of the concept as "since I want certain books it must be that those books are apostolic" is false and reflects poorly on you rather than on the early Christians. Serapion thought that the Gospel Of Peter was inconsistent with what he knew of the historical teachings of the apostles, so he had good reason to be skeptical of the document.

You write:

"The issue is your claim to 'high moral standards' amongst early Christians. If early Christians engage in widespread forging of documents, why should we accept your claim to high moral standards? That's the relevance of the issue. As to how I know it, it's just apparent. I've cited many examples. Forged documents represent a very large proportion of early Christian writings and a very low proportion of books on the bookshelf at Barnes and Noble."

No, saying "it's just apparent" isn't enough. No matter how many forgeries there were, people who opposed forgeries can't be held responsible for supporting them. And if you're going to count the number of forgeries, and you're going to include ones that are only referred to without our possessing copies of them (the forgery Paul responded to in 2 Thessalonians, for example), then you need to do the same with non-forgeries. There are many documents of Irenaeus, Origen, and other Christians that are no longer extant. You'll need to document that the forgeries outnumber the genuine documents, and you'll need to demonstrate that the existence of a larger number of forgeries has the implications you're suggesting. Be sure to also tell us whether you apply the same standards to the ancient world in general, such as the large number of forgeries that existed in the Roman world.

You write:

"If you want to lump early Christians in with junk mail distributors, I'm fine with that. Neither can be considered to have 'high moral standards.'"

Here we have another example of your bad reasoning. I didn't "lump early Christians in with junk mail distributors". Rather, I said that just as there were many forgeries in the ancient world, there are many forgeries today. If we shouldn't think that the ancient Christians had high moral standards, since many purportedly Christian forgeries existed in the ancient world, then, using your same bad reasoning, we shouldn't think that Jon Curry has high moral standards, since many forgeries have existed in America.

You write:

"Because it's not about the mere existence of forgeries. It's the widespread existence of forgeries."

Forgeries are widespread today as well, and they've been widespread in other eras of history and among other groups (for example, http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/cep/cep2004.html and http://www.caslon.com.au/forgeryprofile1.htm). Jesus and the apostles condemned dishonesty, and the mainstream of early Christianity opposed forgeries. Yet, you keep mentioning that there were many forgeries in existence at the time, as if the existence of those forgeries is a sufficient response to the evidence we have for the early Christians' opposition to forgeries. Using your reasoning, we should disregard your claims to honesty on the basis of the widespread existence of forgeries in America.

You write:

"If it were often it wouldn't be written up in the paper. It's rare enough that it is news."

A lot of common events are covered by the media (natural disasters, crime, etc.). But the story we're discussing would get more attention than others because the forgery in question involved a well known author, A.N. Wilson, who was taken in by the forgery to the point of publishing it in a book and because the forgery included a hidden message. In other words, it had some features that most forgeries don't have. The fact that this particular forgery made the news doesn't prove that forgeries are rare. We don't read news stories about every forged e-mail that's sent, every forged document that's composed by an employee of a company, every forged document a government official produces, etc. We sometimes read about these forgeries if a famous person is involved or if somebody is arrested, for example, but most forgeries won't get a news story of their own. But if you search the news archives, there are a lot of stories about modern forgeries. For example (some of these stories are primarily about written forgeries, and others aren't):

"If the document didn't begin circulating until after Paul and those who knew him were dead, then that lateness would itself be a major difficulty for any forger to overcome."

And you responded:

"How so?"

The fact that dead men don't write letters isn't a discovery of modern times. The fact that it's suspicious if a letter allegedly written by a particular author doesn't begin circulating until long after his death isn't a discovery of modern times either. If a document like 2 Thessalonians began to circulate 30 or 60 years or more after its supposed author's death, there probably would have been a large amount of doubt about the document among both the early Christians and their early enemies. Since 2 Thessalonians names a church it allegedly was sent to and names people allegedly with Paul when he wrote it, and since it describes a specific set of circumstances in which it supposedly was sent, there would be many means of falsifying the document early on. To avoid such early potential for falsification, you would have to propose a later date for the document, which then brings up the problem of convincing people that a letter of Paul was unknown for such a long time. Both scenarios are unlikely, especially when you consider that attribution to Paul was unanimous, without even the minority disputes we see with Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, etc. There's also no good reason for forging such a document, and including an eschatological mention of the temple in a post-70 document (2 Thessalonians 2:4) is unlikely. We today think that another temple in Israel is plausible, since Israel recently became a nation again and since there's been interest in building another temple in recent times. But somebody forging a document in the late first or early second century wouldn't have had the same perspective.

I had written:

"I don't know what the latest percentage is, but the rejection of 2 Thessalonians didn't become popular until just recently"

And you responded:

"What difference does that make?"

Since people living near the time of the apostles thought that Paul wrote it, and since it was accepted as Pauline among most modern scholars until just recently, then the recent shift against the document isn't as significant as the more widespread doubts about a document like 2 Peter. The recent change in opinion about 2 Thessalonians isn't due to any new discovery. It's the sort of shift that could easily be reversed, and it ought to be.

I had written:

"Whatever the latest percentage is, a far larger percentage of modern scholars believe that Jesus existed, yet you reject that conclusion."

And you responded:

"Again with the red herrings."

I reject an apparent small majority opinion about 2 Thessalonians, a majority of recent origin that's contrary to what was universally believed about the document in antiquity. You reject a nearly universal opinion about Jesus' existence, an opinion that's consistent with what the earliest Christian and non-Christian sources reported. Your appeal to a scholarly majority on 2 Thessalonians carries less weight when you've shown such a willingness to reject a far more significant majority on the issue of Jesus' existence. Furthermore, modern Biblical scholarship's liberal and speculative tendencies lessen the significance of a small majority's opposition to Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians. Modern universities don't just tend to be politically liberal. They tend to be theologically liberal as well.

You write:

"I don't think so. I recall you talking about how he implied that some would be alive and others dead, but people can die within a day, month, or year, so even though Paul may have expected Christ to come maybe within 10 years he might also expect that some alive at the time might be dead by then. The concern is that the return was expected to happen imminently, and now that people are starting to die, what can be made of that?"

No, 1 Corinthians 6:14 and 2 Corinthians 4:14 refer to the Christians of Paul's day in general as dead when Jesus returns. Paul never states that Jesus will return before the end of his generation. Romans 9-11 anticipates events prior to the second coming that suggest a significant passing of time. There's no reason, then, to think that Paul couldn't have anticipated events like those of 2 Thessalonians 2, especially considering that such events wouldn't take much time and were commonly expected in pre-Christian Jewish sources. Nothing in Paul's most commonly accepted writings requires the second coming within Paul's generation, and nothing in 2 Thessalonians attempts to address any supposed promise that the second coming would occur within Paul's generation. 2 Thessalonians 1:7 repeats the common Pauline concept of the possibility of Jesus' return within his generation. There's no reason to consider 2 Thessalonians inconsistent with the most commonly accepted Pauline documents.

And since we have no good reason to limit ourselves to the most commonly accepted documents, it should also be noted that Ephesians 6:1-4 assumes the potential of a future generation prior to Jesus' return. As I explained previously, Clement of Rome, who probably was a disciple of Paul and was at least a contemporary of the apostles who was part of a church that was recently in contact with the apostles, refers to how the apostles anticipated and planned for future generations of church leadership. As I also documented earlier, the sort of language of imminency and references to the end times that we find in Paul's writings are found in sources of the late first and second centuries as well, so it doesn't seem that people of that era were trying to correct such Pauline themes.

You write:

"And I've responded to those arguments and shown them to be false."

No, you haven't. You left the discussion after I demonstrated that your arguments were false:

"It's just that since you have someone beating the drum about forgeries you know forgeries are a problem and you can't assume the author isn't himself a forger."

Nobody denies that forgeries are possible, so saying that the mention of a forgery in 2 Thessalonians "causes suspicion" in that sense isn't of much significance. You aren't giving us any reason to think that it's probable that 2 Thessalonians is a forgery.

You write:

"Are you suggesting that the early Christians were just as competent then as we are today to recognize forgery with these methods?"

No. They didn't need to be. Similarly, people of the forty-first century probably will have better resources in evaluating such issues than we have, but it doesn't therefore follow that people of the twenty-first century didn't have methods sufficient to warrant confidence. One generation builds on the knowledge of another. But an earlier generation can have sufficient knowledge of a subject without having as much knowledge as later generations. Again, see Glenn Miller's article on the concern and means ancient societies had for detecting forgery (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html). See also my comments on the subject earlier in this post and in our previous discussions and in other articles at this blog (for example, http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/06/was-large-percentage-of-new-testament.html).

When I refer to one generation building on the knowledge of another, I'm assuming equal contexts. Generally, we would better be able to evaluate a document 500 years prior to our time than people of the first century A.D. would have been able to have evaluated a document 500 years prior to their time. But if both groups are evaluating the same document, and it's a document written in the first century A.D., then the people living at that time would have some significant advantages over us. They would have access to records that we don't have, eyewitnesses, contemporaries, etc.

You write:

"These are all cause for suspicion of these documents. 'I Paul' references are also suspicious as they are in many pseudonymous works as a dead give away to forgery."

The fact that something appears in some forgeries doesn't prove that it's "a dead give away to forgery". You need to produce an argument other than the fact that something appears in some forgeries. A lot of what occurs in forgeries is consistent with genuine documents. If forgeries were entirely different from genuine documents, they wouldn't be effective.

The Pauline documents that are accepted across the scholarly spectrum repeatedly use the phrase "I, Paul" (1 Corinthians 16:21, 2 Corinthians 10:1, Galatians 5:2, 1 Thessalonians 2:18, Philemon 9). In our discussions last year, you accepted 1 Corinthians as written by Paul. Are you now rejecting it? In our more recent discussions, you accepted 1 Thessalonians as authentic. That letter uses the phrase "I, Paul" (1 Thessalonians 2:18). Are you now saying that 1 Thessalonians is suspicious? Are you rejecting it as non-Pauline? If you aren't saying that the phrase is "suspicious" in the sense of leading you to the conclusion that the documents in question are probably forgeries, then why did you raise the issue?

One of the reasons why Paul would use the phrase "I, Paul" would be for purposes of emphasis. Passages like 2 Corinthians 10:1 and Philemon 9 add further qualifiers ("myself", etc.) to make it even more forceful. It occurs without a name also ("I myself" in Romans 15:14). Putting emphasis on the identity of the author would be particularly significant if the author was an authority figure. It also distinguishes Paul from those who are with him (Timothy, etc.) in some of the contexts in which he's writing. No forgery is thereby suggested. As Peter O'Brien notes, the construction in Philemon 19 "gives the statement the character of a formal and binding signature" (Word Biblical Commentary: Colossians And Philemon [Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982], p. 300). This sort of language is often used in the context of an oath or a legal setting, for example.

You write:

"When you sign your name, do you include a discussion about how this is how you normally sign your name?"

Yes, if you want to communicate to people that they should be looking for your handwriting in every letter, not just some. If the Thessalonians thought that Paul might send them letters with or without his own handwriting, and a forger had sent one without it, it would make sense for Paul to mention that they should expect his handwriting in every letter.

You write:

"You sign your name and people can tell it is yours."

How can they tell? How do you know that his previous letters to the Thessalonians had a signature? You don't. Even if 2 Thessalonians 3:17 is referring to something Paul had always done in the past, not just something he had started doing in every letter since the forgery, he would still want to tell the Thessalonians to expect it in every letter, not just some. And most of the recipients of the letter would be hearing it, not seeing it (1 Thessalonians 5:27).

You write:

"You need a separate independent proof for the authenticity. And if they have this they don't need him to talk about it."

Using the same bad reasoning, we should conclude that any letter mentioning an author's name is suspicious if the author has been identified independently. If you receive a letter with a return address of a relative on the envelope, and the letter itself contains the name of that relative, then you should suspect a forgery. You should also be suspicious if the body of the letter gives you enough detail to identify the author, yet his name appears at the end. Surely he wouldn't follow any writing custom of signing his name at the end if he had already identified himself in the body of the letter. He would only do what's necessary. If a signature isn't needed, then we should suspect forgery when we see a signature. If his name is on the envelope, or the body of the letter identifies him, then why place his name at the end of the letter as well?

Your argument about what people would "need" is insufficient, since what's needed isn't the only issue to be taken into account. Something can be done for emphasis, to follow a writing custom, to show affection, or for some other reason, even if it isn't needed.

The fact that these things have to be explained to you doesn't reflect well on your knowledge of these issues, and it doesn't reflect well on how carefully you've thought through your arguments. Most recipients of a document like 2 Thessalonians would hear it read to them rather than reading it themselves. While an effort could be made to have somebody mention that Paul included an identifying mark with the letter every time the letter is read, a comment such as the one in 2 Thessalonians 3:17 would ensure that the issue is mentioned every time. A messenger who carries the letter from Paul won't always be around, nor will the people who spoke with him. They'll be at other places, and they'll eventually die. The comments in 2 Thessalonians 3:17 maintain a record of what occurred, regardless of whether the people originally involved are around. And if Paul wanted to emphasize the issue when he was closing out the letter, he could do so even if such emphasis wasn't needed.

Ancient letters usually didn't have a signature. But Paul's practice of writing out some portion of the closing of a letter was common. F.F. Bruce comments:

"Cicero seems commonly to have written his letters himself, but where he uses an amanuensis, he indicates that the letter-closing is in his own hand (cf. Ad Att. 13.28: hac manu mea, 'this in my own hand'). In another letter he quotes a sentence from one which he himself had received from Pompey and says that it came in extremo ipsius manu, 'at the end, in his own hand' (Ad Att. 8.1)." (Word Biblical Commentary: 1 And 2 Thessalonians [Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982], p. 216)

You have yet to give us any arguments against Pauline authorship that are even close to the weight of the arguments in support of it. The fact that you would ask why it's a significant problem for a Pauline forgery if it doesn't begin circulating until after Paul's death suggests that you don't understand the significance of external evidence. The same sort of reasoning you've applied to 2 Thessalonians 3:17 could also be applied to documents like 1 Corinthians and Philemon, which are accepted across the scholarly spectrum. You referred to 1 Corinthians as a letter of Paul in our discussions on Greg Krehbiel's board last year. Do you reject it as non-Pauline now? Are there any New Testament documents whose traditional authorship attributions you accept? Arguing that something like 15 or 20 of the attributions are wrong is absurd enough. Are you suggesting an even higher number?

You write:

"You asked for documentation of my claims and I'm simply repeating the documentation that I've already provided. In response to my direct answer to you you respond and say that nobody denies their were forgeries. You were the one who asked me for documentation of unethical behavior. Now you seem to switch subjects when the documentation is offered."

The issue is the moral standards of the early Christians. How many of them composed forgeries like the Gospel Of Peter? There are some Americans who molest children and rape women. How far will citing such people get you in arguing against the moral standards of Americans in general? If the large majority of Americans condemn child molestation and rape, and they don't practice such things, what would you think of somebody who argued against the moral standards of Americans in general by repeatedly citing the small percentage of the population that engages in such behavior?

You write:

"People ordinarily skew things in a direction favorable to themselves. People ordinarily read a particular text and see in it what they want to see."

People have self-interest, but it doesn't therefore follow that there are no constraints on what people will commonly believe. Most people aren't going to believe that they've received a paycheck for a large amount of money just because they would like it to be so. If the check is for $500, they aren't going to conclude that it's for $10000 instead. And if they did believe that it was for such a large amount, then they would be corrected repeatedly by other people who don't find such a large sum so appealing, like the bank and their employer.

Similarly, people don't commonly assume that a letter appearing 30 years after a person has died was written by that person just because they would like it to be so. And if they did assume that the letter is authentic and did so in a highly public context, then other people would be able to correct their mistake. If a letter appeared claiming to have been written by Paul to the Thessalonians, the Thessalonians probably wouldn't collectively fabricate memories of receiving such a letter just because they like the idea, and the enemies of Christianity wouldn't go along with the process by remaining silent about the fact that nobody knew of the letter for 30 years after Paul's death. Several of the New Testament documents were disputed by the early Christians, including documents that had no material that the people doing the disputing would object to. It's not as if documents like 2 Peter and 2 John were doctrinally objectionable to mainstream Christianity. Why were such documents disputed, if the early Christians were as uncritical as you're suggesting? Why do they make so many references to eyewitness testimony, linguistic evidence, etc. if such evidence wasn't of much concern to them and they were believing whatever appealed to them without much critical thinking?

If you want to define common moral standards as people "seeing what they want to see", then, by that definition, the early Christians did have standards that were out of the ordinary. They didn't want Jesus to profess His ignorance of the future (Mark 13:32), they didn't want Paul to get into a dispute with Peter (Galatians 2:11), etc. There are many elements of Christianity that the early Christians had difficulty with or didn't understand, so they weren't just seeing what they wanted to see. If there were as few constraints on what the early Christians believed as you're suggesting, then why didn't they keep adding books to the canon in the manner I described earlier? Why didn't they attribute works of the third, fourth, or fifth century to the apostles? When the early opponents of Christianity began criticizing passages like Mark 13:32 and Galatians 2:11, why didn't the early Christians remove those passages from the documents, then tell themselves that the passages were never there to begin with? If the early Christians were as willing to see what they wanted to see as you suggest, then why were they so constrained by the realities of the world around them?

You write:

"I think stopping your ears is not just bad, but very bad."

Why should we have much concern about what you think? You aren't giving us any reason to share your evaluation, so what is your telling us what you think supposed to accomplish?

You write:

"I did cite the source. Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31. You can look it up anywhere and verify the translation."

You were using a translation done by Richard Carrier, one that differs significantly from others and isn't commonly used. Most of us don't know the original languages used in patristic documents and other documents of antiquity. We rely on other sources to do the translating. And it would be significant to know that Richard Carrier did your translation.

You write:

"When I direct you to a website and tell you precisely what to look at you respond and say you aren't going to take the time."

I don't know what you're referring to. I've said that I wouldn't go through a Wikipedia article you cited regarding alleged parallels between Jesus and pagan mythology. This was after you had misused other Wikipedia articles, and the article in question had a warning at the top saying that the material in it is disputed. Since I was already familiar with the problematic nature of arguments for parallels to pagan mythology, since you didn't tell me which specific parallels you considered convincing, since you had a record of misusing Wikipedia, and since this Wikipedia article had a warning about its own content, I told you that I wouldn't take the time to go through it. How is that comparable to what you've done with Roger Pearse's article?

You write:

"He says that it could also be interpreted as 'fiction' or something like that. He doesn't say that it should be."

No, he does say that "fiction" is a better rendering. For example:

"I think Eusebius is not advocating dishonesty, so much as suggesting that fiction has a role to play in education. It is difficult to see Gibbon's remarks as fair comment, particularly when one notices the mistranslation of the final part of the chapter heading....So is Eusebius really saying that the Bible is full of lies, and that this is one of the things the Greeks copied from the Jews? I find it hard to believe that Eusebius thought the bible was full of lies. Surely such a curious proposition would certainly require more evidence than one footnote in the PE, anyway. That the bible contains stories, such as parables, intended to educate is surely a better interpretation?? To resolve this, we need to see what Eusebius says elsewhere....The idea presumes not just that Eusebius believes the bible is full of lies, but that if the bible is full of lies, it must be OK to lie; and that Eusebius has applied this in his writings. The purpose of the allegation seems to be to permit some of his testimony to be discarded. The first idea seems very strange, and the others are simply inferences from it. But no evidence is given for any of these....The heading must be read 'fiction', because the subject is the Old Testament: portions of which cannot be understood literally, in Origenist exegesis....The alternative -- that Eusebius advocates lying -- is not in the text and can only be put there by the translating with 'a judicious laxity' of Gibbon (T.R.Glover, Loeb Tertullian, p.xi). The words of Eusebius have to be played down, and words not quoted by him from the passage by Plato emphasised. In short, the allegation is itself a malicious falsehood." (http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/eusebius_the_liar.htm)

If Pearse says that the "fiction" rendering is "better", "must" be used, etc., and he comments that the alternative is "very strange" and is itself "a malicious falsehood", then how can you claim that Pearse doesn't argue that the "fiction" rendering should be used? And Pearse doesn't just give his own opinion. He also cites another translation using the term "fiction" (http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/pe_data.htm).

You've once again been misled by Richard Carrier. But you can't blame Carrier for your insistence on continuing in your error after you were corrected.

You write:

"He says he will only record that which is favorable to Christianity. That goes beyond simply being selective. This shows his mindset."

Again, Eusebius' comments are about a section of his writings addressing martyrs. He writes:

"But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them [unfaithful Christians], as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. Hence we shall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be usefull first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Church History, 8:2-3)

He acknowledges the existence of unfaithful Christians during the recent persecution, and he comments that he'll mention them enough to show that God's judgment of them was just. But his focus will be on the faithful Christians. How is any of this evidence that Eusebius considered it acceptable to lie? It isn't. Similarly, many articles and books have been written about people who did commendable things in the events surrounding September 11, 2001. Often, the articles and books will be written with a focus on what firemen, policemen, or other people did that was commendable. There were other people who didn't act so commendably (people who stole items from the sites of the terrorist attacks, for example), but many articles, books, television programs, etc. will either not mention such people at all or won't give them much attention. Do we conclude that the people producing such accounts are therefore lying? No. It would be similarly absurd to accuse Eusebius of advocating lying in this passage. The passage reflects his Christian worldview and the fact that he was more concerned about some issues than others, but none of that requires lying, and non-Christian historical sources do the same. It's not as if men like Josephus and Tacitus had no worldview, never focused on one issue while giving another less attention, etc. There's a difference between saying, on the one hand, that Eusebius' worldview and objectives should be taken into account, as we would do with any source, and saying, on the other hand, that Eusebius was advocating lying.

You write:

"Are you saying that you decided to address a completely unrelated reference to Salmon?"

No, the other issues I raised with regard to Salmon were related to what you had been arguing. Your claim that my comments were "completely unrelated" is ridiculous. You called Salmon "a pretty good historian". It's relevant, then, for me to point out that Salmon didn't associate his negative comments about later Christians with the earliest Christians. To the contrary, he distinguished between the two. In other words, this "pretty good historian" you were citing didn't think the evidence suggests that the earliest Christians behaved the way the later sources he criticized behaved.

You write:

"You think I'm arguing that since Cyril was a torturer it therefore follows that every Christian is?"

No, I didn't suggest that you were making that argument. You're the one who isn't understanding what's being argued and what isn't. I asked you about a few representative examples (you, your wife, Peter, Polycarp, and Irenaeus). Depending on your answer, I would ask you some other questions. But since you won't even answer the initial question, the argument hasn't gone any further.

You've accused Cyril of Alexandria of torture and Eusebius of Caesarea of lying, for example, in response to my comments about the high moral standards of the earliest Christians, even after I told you that I wasn't referring to people living as late as Cyril of Alexandria. Do you think that the behavior of Cyril is representative of how the mainstream of the earliest Christians behaved? If not, then why have you been citing him against my argument about the earliest Christians?

If you're going to argue that we don't have as much evidence for the moral standards of earlier Christians as we have for the moral standards of Cyril of Alexandria, then you need to address what I said on that subject earlier. We don't need as much evidence for the earlier sources as we have for the later sources in order to reach reliable conclusions about the earlier sources. Similarly, we know more about modern Christians than we know about Cyril of Alexandria, but it doesn't therefore follow that we can't reach any reliable conclusions about Cyril. Given that we have thousands of pages of written documents from the earliest Christians and much other relevant information about them from other sources (such as archeology and non-Christian writings about the earliest Christians), it's dubious to claim that we need to go to later sources like Cyril of Alexandria in order to establish how the earlier Christians probably behaved.

You write:

"Again, show that I accept him when it strengthens my view and reject him when he weakens my view. If that's true then it appears my own hopes are influencing what I accept. That's exactly what we see in your case. Acceptance of his view on Easter doesn't hurt you, so you accept it. Acceptance of Irenaeus view on John helps you so you accept it. Irenaeus talks about Jesus living to 50 and that makes the Bible wrong, so you reject it. Papias talks about Judas' head expansion would show that the apostles are unreliable so you reject it. You exhibit a correlation based upon your own motivations and I do not."

I've already given you examples. You've rejected what Irenaeus says about many New Testament document attributions while accepting other document attributions that he makes, for example. Just as you're saying that it's to my benefit to reject Irenaeus' view of Jesus' old age, I can say that it's to your benefit to reject Irenaeus' view of the authorship of the fourth gospel. If you want to respond by saying that you accept some things Irenaeus reported that could be viewed as evidence against your belief system in some way, then I can do the same. Irenaeus' comments about some people in his day rejecting Biblical books that I accept could be viewed as evidence against my belief system, yet I accept the historicity of what Irenaeus reported. Similarly, I accept the historicity of what you cited from Epiphanius regarding the fact that some people attributed John's gospel to Cerinthus. The fact that some people did so can be viewed as evidence against my position (you cited it as such), yet I accept it.

Your comment that I reject something like Irenaeus' belief in Jesus' old age because it "makes the Bible wrong" is misleading. Irenaeus' view isn't just rejected by Christians, but by scholarship across the board. Irenaeus isn't just contradicted by the Bible, but also by many other sources. Even if the Bible was the only source we had by which to evaluate Irenaeus' claim, the Biblical authors wrote in circumstances in which they had better access to the truth. There would be reason to trust the Biblical authors over Irenaeus, even without believing in the inspiration of the Bible. I can give good reasons for rejecting something like Irenaeus' view of Jesus' age. You, on the other hand, repeatedly reject what the early sources report (Jesus' existence, the authorship of the gospels, etc.) for no good reason. Both of us accept some of what a source like Irenaeus reports while rejecting other things he reports. The difference is that I have far better justification for what I accept and reject than you have for what you accept and reject.